If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   Remember that story about the IRS commissioner signing in for 157 visits to the White House in Obama's first term? Yeah, just kidding it was actually 11   (theatlantic.com) divider line 298
    More: Followup, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, President Obama, White House, IRS, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Douglas Shulman, situation room, Easter Egg Roll  
•       •       •

2380 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 May 2013 at 1:07 PM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



298 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-31 03:20:49 PM

studs up: Soup4Bonnie: studs up: I honestly asked if anyone had the actual number of meetings (visits, Skype, whatever) anywhere.

42

lol


I too applaud this magnificent answer.
 
2013-05-31 03:23:16 PM
I gotta say, only 11 times, less than once a quarter?

I think the valid criticism here is that maybe President Obama was a little too hands off with the IRS.
 
2013-05-31 03:23:56 PM
I find his attendance at the Easter Egg Roll highly suspicious.
 
2013-05-31 03:33:41 PM

FlashHarry: Corvus: What noncombatant Americans have been targeted and killed exactly?

four of them, from what i understand.

noncombatant meaning that they weren't engaged in combat at the time of their deaths.


What?

So if someone stops for 1 hour fighting they become a non-combatant?

Who are they again?
 
2013-05-31 03:36:32 PM

FlashHarry: btw, before we go further:

battlefield |ˈbatlˌfēld|(also battleground |-ˌground|)
noun
the piece of ground on which a battle is or was fought: death on the battlefield | [ as modifier ] : battlefield conditions.

just to be clear. you cannot deem the entire planet as a battlefield. just as you cannot declare war on a tactic (e.g. terror). doing so gives you extraordinary powers that are ripe for abuse.


So is a command and control center not part of the "battlefield"?

Are you saying we can't attack areas that doing run military operations during war? Think about what you say.
 
2013-05-31 03:37:55 PM

FlashHarry: Corvus: Sorry according to the AUMF (which you can say you don't like but is still law) you are wrong.

obama doesn't like it either. and, yes, in my opinion (this is fark, remember?), the AUMF is wrong.

that's the whole point of the argument. not drones per se.

and my point in this thread was that the extrajudicial killing of americans is an actual controversy, whereas benghazi, IRS and AP aren't.


Is the AUMF law? Did SCOTUS throw out the AUMF? You saying it's "wrong" legally doesn't mean shiat!


Who were these 4 Americans that you say were non-combatants? Why won't you tell us?
 
2013-05-31 03:39:49 PM

FlashHarry: Corvus: What noncombatant Americans have been targeted and killed exactly?

four of them, from what i understand.

noncombatant meaning that they weren't engaged in combat at the time of their deaths.


So people who are running military operations according to you can no be targeted? Because according to you they are not on the "battlefield" and are "non-combatants". So Hitler in WWII to you was a "non-combatant"?

That's hilarious.
 
2013-05-31 03:40:06 PM

Aldon: I gotta say, only 11 times, less than once a quarter?

I think the valid criticism here is that maybe President Obama was a little too hands off with the IRS.


I think there's a little something wrong with your math.....

11 =/= less than once a quarter

1/4 year = 3 months, if that helps.
 
2013-05-31 03:41:17 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Aldon: I gotta say, only 11 times, less than once a quarter?

I think the valid criticism here is that maybe President Obama was a little too hands off with the IRS.

I think there's a little something wrong with your math.....

11 =/= less than once a quarter

1/4 year = 3 months, if that helps.


NEVERMIND I'M STUPID IT'S LATE ON A FRIDAY!
 
2013-05-31 03:43:22 PM
So now righties must apologize for being wrong about the number of visits and for being angry that someone checked out political organizations that wanted the tax status of a non-political organization...and still got it.
 
2013-05-31 03:44:01 PM

Corvus: So if someone stops for 1 hour fighting they become a non-combatant?


did i say that? i don't believe i said that at any point.

Corvus: So is a command and control center not part of the "battlefield"?


is a car a "command and control center?" is an apartment in a city in a country with which we are not at war?

Corvus: Is the AUMF law? Did SCOTUS throw out the AUMF? You saying it's "wrong" legally doesn't mean shiat!


just because it's a law, doesn't mean that it's right. and this is fark - we have opinions here. i never even suggested that mine meant anything "legally." you really need to stop putting words in my mouth and arguing with straw men. it's not helping your case any.

Corvus: Who were these 4 Americans that you say were non-combatants? Why won't you tell us?


In his letter to Congressional leaders, Mr. Holder confirmed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who died in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen. Mr. Holder also wrote that United States forces had killed three other Americans who "were not specifically targeted." (emphasis mine)
 
2013-05-31 03:46:59 PM

Corvus: So people who are running military operations according to you can no be targeted? Because according to you they are not on the "battlefield" and are "non-combatants". So Hitler in WWII to you was a "non-combatant"?

That's hilarious.


are you deliberately being facile? i can't tell.

in case you aren't, hitler was the leader of a country with which we were at war. it was a thing called world war two - you might look it up.
 
2013-05-31 03:48:21 PM

FlashHarry: just to be clear. you cannot deem the entire planet as a battlefield. just as you cannot declare war on a tactic (e.g. terror). doing so gives you extraordinary powers that are ripe for abuse.



AUMF:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Umm actually they did. And until the SCOTUS says they can't it's law no matter if you think it's unfair or nor. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal. Repeat that until you get it.

I am not saying I agree with it or not. That point is irrelevant.
 
2013-05-31 03:49:12 PM

Corvus: So people who are running military operations according to you can no be targeted? Because according to you they are not on the "battlefield" and are "non-combatants". So Hitler in WWII to you was a "non-combatant"?

That's hilarious.


by the way, using your own tactic of ridiculous extrapolation, the AUMF allows the president to kill any citizen anywhere at any time for any reason without trial.

are you ok with this? why do you hate the constitution?
 
2013-05-31 03:51:54 PM
Anyone else surprised that they provided a screenshot that includes user ID's and badge numbers?
 
2013-05-31 03:52:11 PM

Corvus: Umm actually they did. And until the SCOTUS says they can't it's law no matter if you think it's unfair or nor. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal. Repeat that until you get it.

I am not saying I agree with it or not. That point is irrelevant.


when i said, "you cannot..." i meant that you cannot morally. as in "you cannot just go up to somebody and shoot them." of course it's physically possible. it's just wrong.

and my whole point - going back to the topic of the thread - is that the extrajudicial killing of americans is a bona fide controversy - meaning that there is a real argument as to whether or not it's morally or ethically allowable. the IRS, AP and especially the benghazi "scandals" are not.
 
2013-05-31 03:54:12 PM

FlashHarry: Corvus: So if someone stops for 1 hour fighting they become a non-combatant?

did i say that? i don't believe i said that at any point.


Actually you said exactly that:

Corvus: So is a command and control center not part of the "battlefield"?

is a car a "command and control center?" is an apartment in a city in a country with which we are not at war?


It can be sure! What country are we at war with under the AUMF? You tell me where it says what country we are at war with.

Corvus: Is the AUMF law? Did SCOTUS throw out the AUMF? You saying it's "wrong" legally doesn't mean shiat!

just because it's a law, doesn't mean that it's right. and this is fark - we have opinions here. i never even suggested that mine meant anything "legally." you really need to stop putting words in my mouth and arguing with straw men. it's not helping your case any.


So then you are admitting that what Obama is doing is legal?

Corvus: Who were these 4 Americans that you say were non-combatants? Why won't you tell us?

In his letter to Congressional leaders, Mr. Holder confirmed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who died in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen. Mr. Holder also wrote that United States forces had killed three other Americans who "were not specifically targeted." (emphasis mine)


So then your 4 is actually one?

Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled al-Aulaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي Anwar al-'Awlaqī; April 21, 1971 - September 30, 2011) was an American[7] and Yemeni imam.[8][9] U.S. government officials said that he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda.[2][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] With a blog, a Facebook page, the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire, and many YouTube videos, the Saudi news station Al Arabiya described him as the "bin Laden of the Internet."[17][18] After a request from the U.S. Congress, in November 2010 YouTube removed many of Awlaki's videos.[19]

So someone planning attack operations to you is a NON-COMBATANT?
 
2013-05-31 03:55:35 PM

FlashHarry: Corvus: So people who are running military operations according to you can no be targeted? Because according to you they are not on the "battlefield" and are "non-combatants". So Hitler in WWII to you was a "non-combatant"?

That's hilarious.

by the way, using your own tactic of ridiculous extrapolation, the AUMF allows the president to kill any citizen anywhere at any time for any reason without trial.

are you ok with this? why do you hate the constitution?


Yes. it does. I don't like that. Congress can make a change if they think it's wrong. I realize just because I don't like something that doesn't make it illegal.
 
2013-05-31 03:57:54 PM

FlashHarry: Corvus: Umm actually they did. And until the SCOTUS says they can't it's law no matter if you think it's unfair or nor. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal. Repeat that until you get it.

I am not saying I agree with it or not. That point is irrelevant.

when i said, "you cannot..." i meant that you cannot morally. as in "you cannot just go up to somebody and shoot them." of course it's physically possible. it's just wrong.

and my whole point - going back to the topic of the thread - is that the extrajudicial killing of americans is a bona fide controversy - meaning that there is a real argument as to whether or not it's morally or ethically allowable. the IRS, AP and especially the benghazi "scandals" are not.


Why is something that many other presidents have done before a "bona fide" scandal?

Heck to me the AP is much more a real scandal then the military strikes that most president have done.

More presidents I think have actually used military strikes in the way Obama has then investigated reporters for leaks.
 
2013-05-31 03:58:09 PM

FlashHarry: Corvus: Umm actually they did. And until the SCOTUS says they can't it's law no matter if you think it's unfair or nor. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it illegal. Repeat that until you get it.

I am not saying I agree with it or not. That point is irrelevant.

when i said, "you cannot..." i meant that you cannot morally. as in "you cannot just go up to somebody and shoot them." of course it's physically possible. it's just wrong.

and my whole point - going back to the topic of the thread - is that the extrajudicial killing of americans is a bona fide controversy - meaning that there is a real argument as to whether or not it's morally or ethically allowable. the IRS, AP and especially the benghazi "scandals" are not.


The difference between the real scandal of the targeted killings and the other "scandals" is that the targeted killings are aimed at scary brown people and the GOP loves killing brown people.
 
2013-05-31 04:01:37 PM

Corvus: Actually you said exactly that:


i said that "if someone stops for 1 hour fighting they become a non-combatant?" please tell me where i said "exactly" that (your word, not mine)

Corvus: It can be sure! What country are we at war with under the AUMF? You tell me where it says what country we are at war with.


we aren't at war with any country. that's my farking point.

Corvus: So then you are admitting that what Obama is doing is legal?


i've never said otherwise. i have said that it may be wrong.

Corvus: So then your 4 is actually one?


what part of "three other americans" do you not understand? are you dim?

Corvus: So someone planning attack operations to you is a NON-COMBATANT?


do we know for sure he was planning attack operations? if we do for sure, then, yes, he would be a combatant. my worry is that it is very easy to apply this to somebody who is merely "suspected." after all, bush and rumsfeld said that all the inmates at guantanamo bay were so dangerous that they could never have trials let alone ever be released. then they released half of them. i guess we weren't so sure, were we.

Corvus: I realize just because I don't like something that doesn't make it illegal.


i have never said that it was illegal. the fact that it is legal is the problem. why are you having such trouble grasping this?
 
2013-05-31 04:02:00 PM

FlashHarry: • gee, i don't know, cooperate with local police agencies to have them picked up and detained pending trial?


Are you really this uninformed about whats going on? They refuse to pick these people up. Read more about this subject. They tried this. They were told to fark off.
 
2013-05-31 04:03:40 PM
Corvus: So someone planning attack operations to you is a NON-COMBATANT?

Well...if we're being lawyers about it.... the Geneva conventions reserve combatant status for official soldiers and " civilians who take a direct part in combat and do not fall into one of the categories listed in the previous section "

So, no?  Not legally.
 
2013-05-31 04:04:06 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Aldon: I gotta say, only 11 times, less than once a quarter?

I think the valid criticism here is that maybe President Obama was a little too hands off with the IRS.

I think there's a little something wrong with your math.....

11 =/= less than once a quarter

1/4 year = 3 months, if that helps.


The article mentions 2009 to 2012
I will leave it to smart people like you to figure out how many quarters that is.

Because I can't figure out if you misread my post or you are just super special.
 
2013-05-31 04:05:14 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: Satan's Bunny Slippers: Aldon: I gotta say, only 11 times, less than once a quarter?

I think the valid criticism here is that maybe President Obama was a little too hands off with the IRS.

I think there's a little something wrong with your math.....

11 =/= less than once a quarter

1/4 year = 3 months, if that helps.

NEVERMIND I'M STUPID IT'S LATE ON A FRIDAY!


whoops, nevermind my last post.
 
2013-05-31 04:05:55 PM

Corvus: Are you really this uninformed about whats going on? They refuse to pick these people up. Read more about this subject. They tried this. They were told to fark off.


first of all, i was under the impression you were speaking broadly when you said "these people," referring to americans suspected of terror ties abroad. we have many assets in many countries. local police is only one possibility. but i can see the appeal - killing somebody remotely doesn't risk the lives of american troops or intelligence assets.

but easy doesn't necessarily mean right.
 
2013-05-31 04:06:55 PM

FlashHarry: Corvus: Actually you said exactly that:

i said that "if someone stops for 1 hour fighting they become a non-combatant?" please tell me where i said "exactly" that (your word, not mine)


Here you go:

FlashHarry: noncombatant meaning that they weren't engaged in combat at the time of their deaths.


Corvus: It can be sure! What country are we at war with under the AUMF? You tell me where it says what country we are at war with.

we aren't at war with any country. that's my farking point.


So according to you any military action is illegal on the war on terror?

Corvus: So then you are admitting that what Obama is doing is legal?

i've never said otherwise. i have said that it may be wrong.

Corvus: So then your 4 is actually one?

what part of "three other americans" do you not understand? are you dim?


The part that is says they were not targets. Are you now saying any strike that MAY cause collateral damage to an american is also illegal?

Corvus: So someone planning attack operations to you is a NON-COMBATANT?

do we know for sure he was planning attack operations? if we do for sure, then, yes, he would be a combatant. my worry is that it is very easy to apply this to somebody who is merely "suspected." after all, bush and rumsfeld said that all the inmates at guantanamo bay were so dangerous that they could never have trials let alone ever be released. then they released half of them. i guess we weren't so sure, were we.

Corvus: I realize just because I don't like something that doesn't make it illegal.

i have never said that it was illegal. the fact that it is legal is the problem. why are you having such trouble grasping this?


Then how is it Obama's scandal that Congress passed a law and Obama is doing what ever other president would do or has done?

Was Washington send troops to quash the Whiskey Rebellion a "scandal"?
Was Lincoln sending troops down to fight the south a "scandal"?
 
2013-05-31 04:07:00 PM

studs up: Car_Ramrod: studs up: I was told yesterday that it was great for him to be there that often because Obamacare needed that level of interaction. I was actually OK with that, because, that's a lot of bureaucracy to handle. Now I'm told he hardly ever visits, so....now what? No interaction required?

FTA:

He was cleared 40 times to meet with Obama's director of the Office of Health Reform, and a further 80 times for thebiweekly health reform deputies meetings and others set up by aides involved with the health-care law implementation efforts. That's 76 percent of his planned White House visits just there, before you even add in all the meetings with Office of Management and Budget personnel also involved in health reform.

The vast majority of Shulman's scheduled meetings were to take place in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building -- 115 of them. Another three were slated for the NEOB. That leaves just 25 percent of the meetings in the White House itself, or on its South Lawn.

One of the points of the article is that we can't know for sure how many times he was at the White House COMPLEX, which includes non-White House buildings. But a conclusion we can draw from the given information, is that a wide majority of the visits he was scheduled for were with people involved in Obamacare implementation. Which is what you were told yesterday. So, there's that.

Oh, and most of the scheduled meetings weren't even in the White House itself.

Yeah, I got all that. But, the terms bolded are not saying anything at all. Cleared, slated, "were to" don't really mean anything. Did anybody answer how many Obamacare meeting were held by anyone with the IRS in this time frame? I'm hoping a lot, but, I'm not seeing a definitive (or even reasonably close) number.


The details of at least one of the meetings he was scheduled to be at stated it was a bi-weekly meeting on implementing the ACA. Not sure hoe often IRS officials attended those though.
 
2013-05-31 04:08:14 PM

Corvus: FlashHarry: • gee, i don't know, cooperate with local police agencies to have them picked up and detained pending trial?

Are you really this uninformed about whats going on? They refuse to pick these people up. Read more about this subject. They tried this. They were told to fark off.


btw - i have no doubt that Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad guy, and i shed no tears knowing of his demise. my problem, as i have stated over and over here, is that the AUMF could be used to kill any american anywhere any time for any reason. and while legal, i believe that it is wrong because it removes due process.
 
2013-05-31 04:09:57 PM

FlashHarry: Corvus: Are you really this uninformed about whats going on? They refuse to pick these people up. Read more about this subject. They tried this. They were told to fark off.

first of all, i was under the impression you were speaking broadly when you said "these people," referring to americans suspected of terror ties abroad. we have many assets in many countries. local police is only one possibility. but i can see the appeal - killing somebody remotely doesn't risk the lives of american troops or intelligence assets.

but easy doesn't necessarily mean right.


So Lincoln should have sent troops down to arrest those in the uprising in the south?
 
2013-05-31 04:11:17 PM

FlashHarry: Corvus: FlashHarry: • gee, i don't know, cooperate with local police agencies to have them picked up and detained pending trial?

Are you really this uninformed about whats going on? They refuse to pick these people up. Read more about this subject. They tried this. They were told to fark off.

btw - i have no doubt that Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad guy, and i shed no tears knowing of his demise. my problem, as i have stated over and over here, is that the AUMF could be used to kill any american anywhere any time for any reason. and while legal, i believe that it is wrong because it removes due process.


You said he was a NON-COMBATANT and that means he should not have been targeted. Are you still saying that yes or no?

You also said 4 American non-combatants were targeted (which turned out to be not true)
 
2013-05-31 04:14:05 PM

FlashHarry: btw - i have no doubt that Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad guy, and i shed no tears knowing of his demise. my problem, as i have stated over and over here, is that the AUMF could be used to kill any american anywhere any time for any reason. and while legal, i believe that it is wrong because it removes due process.


But you seem to think there is no difference from a guy sitting in a coffee shop with no terrorists ties getting killed in that manner and some guy who is working with the enemy planning military operations against the US in a country where we can't have authorities round him up.

To pretend one is like the other is completely dishonest. Saying I think the later is OK is not saying I think the former is ok and you are trying to pretend that is what I am saying.
 
2013-05-31 04:14:09 PM

Corvus: Here you go:

FlashHarry: noncombatant meaning that they weren't engaged in combat at the time of their deaths.

Corvus: It can be sure! What country are we at war with under the AUMF? You tell me where it says what country we are at war with.


ok, you got me - i was going to hammer you on your use of "exactly," but that would be disingenuous.

Corvus: So according to you any military action is illegal on the war on terror?


i have NEVER said that it is illegal. i have said that it may be wrong. but as you have pointed out several times, my opinion "doesn't mean shiat."

Corvus: The part that is says they were not targets. Are you now saying any strike that MAY cause collateral damage to an american is also illegal?


i never said anything about targeting. i said only that four americans were executed. either way, they're dead without trial or due process.

Corvus: Then how is it Obama's scandal that Congress passed a law and Obama is doing what ever other president would do or has done?


it is less of a scandal and more of a controversy. i will concede you this point of semantics. congratulations!

Corvus: Was Washington send troops to quash the Whiskey Rebellion a "scandal"?


yes, at the time.

Corvus: Was Lincoln sending troops down to fight the south a "scandal"?


ask the south. i'd bet more than a few would say so even today.
 
2013-05-31 04:15:20 PM

FlashHarry: Corvus: FlashHarry: • gee, i don't know, cooperate with local police agencies to have them picked up and detained pending trial?

Are you really this uninformed about whats going on? They refuse to pick these people up. Read more about this subject. They tried this. They were told to fark off.

btw - i have no doubt that Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad guy, and i shed no tears knowing of his demise. my problem, as i have stated over and over here, is that the AUMF could be used to kill any american anywhere any time for any reason. and while legal, i believe that it is wrong because it removes due process.


So you have a problem with the AUMF - How is the AUMF an "Obama scandal" again?
 
2013-05-31 04:16:43 PM
You mean the rightwing media lied about this?
 
2013-05-31 04:17:47 PM

Corvus: You said he was a NON-COMBATANT and that means he should not have been targeted. Are you still saying that yes or no?


i'm saying that we don't know that for sure. as i said earlier, we were sure all the gitmo detainees were combatants. then we released half of them. we've been wrong before.

Corvus: You also said 4 American non-combatants were targeted (which turned out to be not true)


i said executed, not targeted. which was true.

Corvus: But you seem to think there is no difference from a guy sitting in a coffee shop with no terrorists ties getting killed in that manner and some guy who is working with the enemy planning military operations against the US in a country where we can't have authorities round him up.


i never said that at all. my point is, depending on who the president is, he or she can designate anyone a combatant and then legally kill them without due process. that is wrong - in my opinion. which is why i made my point about a president santorum or bachmann. i trust obama, but just because i trust him, i don't think that presidents should have that power - and he doesn't either.
 
2013-05-31 04:18:54 PM

Corvus: So you have a problem with the AUMF - How is the AUMF an "Obama scandal" again?


i conceded earlier that perhaps scandal was the wrong word and that i should have used controversy instead.

controversy |ˈkäntrəˌvərsē|
noun ( pl. controversies )
disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated: he sometimes caused controversy because of his forceful views | the announcement ended a protracted controversy.
 
2013-05-31 04:20:56 PM

FlashHarry: i never said anything about targeting. i said only that four americans were executed.


Huh?

Executed implies targeting!!! That's so dishonest.

If I say someone is "executed" that implies he is purposely being targeted. So know you are saying we can not accidentally kill Americans without a trail? How the fark would that work?

FlashHarry: Corvus: Was Washington send troops to quash the Whiskey Rebellion a "scandal"?

yes, at the time.

Corvus: Was Lincoln sending troops down to fight the south a "scandal"?

ask the south. i'd bet more than a few would say so even today


Wow now were are getting to the "Yes Lincoln SHOULD HAVE been tried for war crimes for attacking the south". I guess this proves how ridiculous your argument actually is.

FlashHarry: Corvus: Then how is it Obama's scandal that Congress passed a law and Obama is doing what ever other president would do or has done?

it is less of a scandal and more of a controversy. i will concede you this point of semantics. congratulations!


Your the one play semantics.

You said it was a "bona fide scandal" so how is him doing what most president have done or will do a "Scandal"? You are the one saying "ok it's a controversy" I never brought up the term "controversy".

Well all the other things you mentioned are "controversies" too so why again is this one different?
 
2013-05-31 04:21:49 PM

FlashHarry: Corvus: So you have a problem with the AUMF - How is the AUMF an "Obama scandal" again?

i conceded earlier that perhaps scandal was the wrong word and that i should have used controversy instead.

controversy |ˈkäntrəˌvərsē|
noun ( pl. controversies )
disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated: he sometimes caused controversy because of his forceful views | the announcement ended a protracted controversy.


Well then the AP, IRS, and Benghazi are big "controversies" so what is your point then?
 
2013-05-31 04:23:15 PM

FlashHarry: Corvus: But you seem to think there is no difference from a guy sitting in a coffee shop with no terrorists ties getting killed in that manner and some guy who is working with the enemy planning military operations against the US in a country where we can't have authorities round him up.

i never said that at all. my point is, depending on who the president is, he or she can designate anyone a combatant and then legally kill them without due process. that is wrong - in my opinion. which is why i made my point about a president santorum or bachmann. i trust obama, but just because i trust him, i don't think that presidents should have that power - and he doesn't either.


Well that's how war powers works it's not an "bona fide Obama scandal".
 
2013-05-31 04:25:29 PM

FlashHarry: Corvus: You also said 4 American non-combatants were targeted (which turned out to be not true)

i said executed, not targeted. which was true.


Executed implied targeted.

When someone says "I executed your dog". It implies the person willfully killed the dog, not accidental.

So once again how do you think war operations would work if no American can be accidentally killed ever?
 
2013-05-31 04:29:38 PM

Corvus: Wow now were are getting to the "Yes Lincoln SHOULD HAVE been tried for war crimes for attacking the south". I guess this proves how ridiculous your argument actually is.


there you go putting words in my mouth again. but, yes, straw men are much easier to fight.

i said, "ask the south." i side with the north, so, no, i don't thing lincoln "SHOULD HAVE been tried for war crimes."

Corvus: If I say someone is "executed" that implies he is purposely being targeted. So know you are saying we can not accidentally kill Americans without a trail? How the fark would that work?


they were killed by the US government without due process. yes, three of the four died as collateral damage and weren't "targeted."

Corvus: Well all the other things you mentioned are "controversies" too so why again is this one different?


they're not legitimate controversies -- not inasmuch as they reach the president, which republicans are trying so desperately to do. that's my point.

Corvus: Well that's how war powers works it's not an "bona fide Obama scandal".


i have conceded many times that perhaps "scandal" was the wrong word. it is a bona fide obama "controversy," however.

but if you want to win on purely semantic grounds, go ahead. you win. congratulations. enjoy your glorious victory!
 
2013-05-31 04:31:33 PM

Corvus: Executed implied targeted.

When someone says "I executed your dog". It implies the person willfully killed the dog, not accidental.

So once again how do you think war operations would work if no American can be accidentally killed ever?


i amend my previous statements. please replace "executed" with "killed by the US government without due process."
 
2013-05-31 04:33:44 PM

Corvus: So once again how do you think war operations would work if no American can be accidentally killed ever?


ok, my point, revised for improved semantics:

i agree that extrajudicial killings via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

now that i've revised my initial statement, would you care to argue against it?
 
2013-05-31 04:37:46 PM

FlashHarry: they were killed by the US government without due process. yes, three of the four died as collateral damage and weren't "targeted."


Tillman died by American hands too, so does many Americans from friendly fire. So then why are you ignoring them?

FlashHarry: Corvus: Well all the other things you mentioned are "controversies" too so why again is this one different?

they're not legitimate controversies -- not inasmuch as they reach the president, which republicans are trying so desperately to do. that's my point.


They are controversies. Ahh new weasel word detected "legitimate" added that wasn't there before. So Obama doing something most president have done or would do and according to you is legal is a "legitimate controversy"? You keep flipping on this.

FlashHarry: Corvus: Well that's how war powers works it's not an "bona fide Obama scandal".

i have conceded many times that perhaps "scandal" was the wrong word. it is a bona fide obama "controversy," however.

but if you want to win on purely semantic grounds, go ahead. you win. congratulations. enjoy your glorious victory!


I have NO idea the difference between a bona fide obama "controversy,"  and a "bona fide Obama scandal". You're the one playing the semantics game not I.

Are you saying Obama has done something wrong, yes or no?

You seem to be the one trying to play semantics about it. I NEVER brought up the word controversy and I have no idea what the difference between a "legitimate controversy" is and a "bona fide scandal" they seem to mean the same thing to me. You are the one seeming to being making some semantic distinction not I.
 
2013-05-31 04:37:57 PM

Popcorn Johnny: Watching the Obama presidency crash and burn is damn entertaining. Not nearly as good as a new episode of Game of Thrones, but equal to a new episode of The Big Bang Theory at least.


The Conservative idiots plainly lied about how many times he was in the White House, but it is bad for Obama?
 
2013-05-31 04:39:03 PM

FlashHarry: Corvus: So once again how do you think war operations would work if no American can be accidentally killed ever?

ok, my point, revised for improved semantics:

i agree that extrajudicial killings via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

now that i've revised my initial statement, would you care to argue against it?


Yes once again, if you don't care it's about DRONES why do you keep saying it is about DRONES!
 
2013-05-31 04:42:38 PM

Corvus: Tillman died by American hands too, so does many Americans from friendly fire. So then why are you ignoring them?


i'm not ignoring them. this was about obama. tillman died under bush.

Corvus: They are controversies. Ahh new weasel word detected "legitimate" added that wasn't there before.


my initial statement - the one that got you all frothed up talked about "fake scandals." and while i admit i should have said "controversies" instead of "scandals," the use of the word "legitimate" is NOT a 'weasel word,' IT WAS MY WHOLE F*CKING POINT. try to keep up.

Corvus: Are you saying Obama has done something wrong, yes or no?


i'm saying that he may have done something wrong though not illegal.

once again,  my point, revised for improved semantics:

i agree that extrajudicial  killings via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

once again, would you care to argue against it?
 
2013-05-31 04:45:00 PM

Corvus: Yes once again, if you don't care it's about DRONES why do you keep saying it is about DRONES!


the operative word was killing - i simply copy/pasted my initial statement, amended for semantics. i have MANY TIMES said that drones weren't my point. but if you are too lazy to take that into account, here is my statement, amended a SECOND time:

i agree that extrajudicial  killings via drone strikes is troubling. i assume that's what you were referring to and not these fake "controversies" that the GOP have ginned up.

again, for the third time, i invite you to argue my point. which has not changed in substance.
 
2013-05-31 04:49:30 PM

randomjsa: So basically Atlantic has no more idea than anyone else does and is just spewing liberal talking points to help cover up another Obama administration scandal.


You seem disappointed.  Better luck next time, champ.
 
Displayed 50 of 298 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report